Amato v. Divine’s Empirical Analysis
558 F.2d 364 · 1977
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
December 1984
most recently cited
3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Fay v. Noia · Hamling v. United States · Roth v. United States · Miller v. California · Marks v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1] In Chobot, . . . the Wisconsin Supreme Court authoritatively construed the word ‘obscene’ in Wisconsin Statutes § 944.21(l)(a) to comport with the test for obscenity formulated in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973). As so con strued, the Wisconsin obscenity statute meets First Amendment standards and any objection to its constitutionality on vagueness grounds has been eliminated. Id. at 24, n.6 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 ; Hamling, supra, 418 U.S. at 110-114 , 94 S.Ct. 2887 . Amato v. Devine, 558 F.2d at 365 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.